Other, non-elected conservatives also promoted the theory. Generation Opportunity President Paul Conway — the former Chief of Staff for the US Department of Labor — told Business Insider on Friday that people should question the numbers because of the timing.

"To have a drop of 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent and have your job-creation number at 114 thousand, at best, it's interesting. At worst, yeah, it is suspicious," Conway said. "And when you look at the timetable, the onus is on the Department of Labor to explain it."

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis addressed the skepticism in an appearance on CNBC this morning, calling it "ludicrous" and saying she has "the highest regard for our professionals that do the calculus.”

“It’s really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement,” she said. “We have to look at across the board, not just one month.”

There have been comprehensive accounts on the measures of separation between the Bureau of Labor and the White House. But The Washington Examiner's Conn Carroll had a different theory: Democrats are now lying about their employment status.

Twitter/@conncarroll

Twitter/@conncarroll

Of course, this goes against the common sensical thinking that unemployed people are probably not too happy with the president. Unsurprisingly, a recent Beyond.com survey found that unemployed Americans prefer a Romney presidency by a 50-44 margin. The employed choose Obama by a 7-point margin.

But the theory has now been embraced by both elected officials like West and conservative pundits like Laura Ingraham, who tweeted Welch's sentiments:

“This is not what a real recovery looks like," Romney said. "We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent."

Recommended For You

The Board Room

Editors' Picks

BI's Community Manager here. Please refrain from abusing the offensive comments flag in this article. You guys ran rampant with it already in the previous Jack Welch thread. Let's all try to have a civil discourse, ok?